View report page

WES 3
47
We have already said that in our opinion the State is bound to
see that a supply of calf lymph is within the reach of every
vaccinator. Though this recommendation has been dictated by
other reasons, its importance in connexion with the alteration in
our vaccination system which we are now considering is apparent.
It would at all events go far to secure that any defect in vaccination
should not result from imperfection in the lymph employed.
The change which we propose in our vaccination system would
no doubt render it somewhat more costly, but the difference
would not be very great, and, in our judgment, no consideration
of cost ought to be allowed to stand in the way of any improvement
which would render the operation less burdensome or
diminish its risk.
It is only fair to demand this if vaccination is to remain compulsory.
In this connection we observe that the public vaccinator
ought, in our opinion, to be under an obligation to afford
medical attendance without cost to the parent in all cases in
which the vaccination does not run an ordinary course, and owing
to supervening illness such attendance becomes necessary.
Whether the fee paid in respect of vaccination should be fixed at
such an amount as to cover this extra attendance in the exceptional
cases in which it would be requisite, or whether it should
be the subject of special compensation, is a matter of detail on
which the Local Government Board is in a better position to
form an opinion than we can be. Inasmuch as compulsory
vaccination is justified on the ground that it is not a matter
which concerns alone either the parent or the vaccinated child,
we think provisions such as we have indicated would be both
just and reasonable. We have already adverted to the importance
which we attach to re-vaccination. It has been suggested
that the operation should be made compulsory by law. We are
quite alive to the protective value of general re-vaccination. At
the same time we are not insensible of the difficulties necessarily
involved in rendering it compulsory. It is, comparatively speaking,
easy in the case of infants to ascertain whether the law
requiring vaccination has been complied with. The constant
movement of the population would render it much more difficult
to ascertain whether at the more advanced age at which it would
become applicable, a law providing for compulsory re-vaccination
had been observed. Again, it is impossible to leave out of sight
the effect that such an extension of the present compulsory law
might have in intensifying hostility, where it at present exists,
and even in extending its area; though if our recommendations,
especially that which exempts from penalty those who honestly
object to the practice, were adopted this objection would be
much diminished. After full consideration of the question we
are, however, deterred by the considerations to which we have
adverted from proposing that re-vaccination should be made
compulsory. At the same time in view of the great importance
of re-vaccination we think it should be in every way encouraged.
If an adequate fee were allowed in every case of successful revaccination,
by whatever medical man it was performed, we think
there would probably be a large extension of the practice. We
think steps should be taken to impress on parents the importance
of having their children re-vaccinated not later than at the age of